Early Retirement Extreme Forums

This man is clearly not fat enough to be considered healthy and will suffer multiple joint faillure after a week of chopping wood.
I suggest you look for this kind of physique if you wan't you husband to survive at least a winter.

@Jean:

Point taken. I will have to plug both options into my systems model in order to determine whether the amount of wood-chopping necessary will warrant the extra kilocalories I would have to provide for your suggestion.

Well, actually, the fatter man probably might function on a cheaper diet than the dry one.
We need to find some balance between obesity excusing and anorexy idealism.

@Jean:

Well, maybe I could keep two, and trade with the Amish for enough feed corn to fatten up one, and let the other one forage for himself in the woods. That would be the anti-fragile solution.

A pound of muscle burns 30-35 kcal/day when not in use, a pound of fat almost zero.

Le gras c'est la vie.

We (men) don't really need bodyfat anymore. We have clothes and plenty of food available at all times now. Of course Fedor could chop more wood than almost any other man, but he (and many Russian athletes) are anomalies.

- - - - -

7WB5, yeah, if men can start harems and cults, a hyper-sexual women certainly should be able to. I think the tricky part, if you're advertising, is to find the men who are productive enough and also wish to be kept. There are plenty of male leeches who want to play video games and smoke weed while the girlfriend goes to work, but obviously you're not going to want or bother with them. I'd recommend just keeping one man. Simpler that way.

With the right woman, I'd be open to being "kept" like that. I like doing those kinds of "productive" things anyways.

You don't need legs anymore because we invented wheelchair and escalators are everywhere? Let's find out!
No.
I think it is important to keep you body as your safest asset.

ehhh. I've ranged from over 20% to maybe about 5% bodyfat. (edit, may have been more like 8%. I dunno)

I felt the best in nearly all ways when the leanest. Healthier. Stronger. Way faster. Better immune system. More virile. and so on.. Only drawback I can recall was that sitting for long periods of time could be less comfortable, depending on the chair/seat.

Are there real health benefits to having more bodyfat that I should learn about? Where can I learn?

C40 wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 17, 2018 9:18 pm

Only drawback I can recall was that sitting for long periods of time could be less comfortable, depending on the chair/seat.

Never considered that positive feedback loop. I find it very hard to get comfortable, so I am constantly changing positions.

There are some negatives to have excessively low body fat. For instance, sometimes I get lightheaded when I get up too quickly. I have fainted a few times from it which can be dangerous.

High metabolism + tendency to forget I have a body = impossible to gain weight

C40 wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 17, 2018 9:18 pm

Are there real health benefits to having more bodyfat that I should learn about? Where can I learn?

The most recent healthcare studies have shown its more about where the fat is, vs total amount of body fat (sample study). 5% is probably pushing a bit too lean if you're maintaining it for long periods because it reduces subq fat to abnormally low levels.

As you age (in 20-30 years), studies have shown that lower BMI's have increased overall mortality and dementia rates. Obviously, obesity is still way worse. (sample study)

classical_Liberal wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 17, 2018 10:04 pm

As you age (in 20-30 years), studies have shown that lower BMI's have increased overall mortality and dementia rates. Obviously, obesity is still way worse. (sample study)

This sounds counterintuitive. Although thinking about it, most 60+ people I know are rather chubby and the skinny ones are so because of they already have some health issues, hence loosing weight.

And the thread is officially derailed!

Bankai wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 18, 2018 4:05 am

This sounds counterintuitive. Although thinking about it, most 60+ people I know are rather chubby and the skinny ones are so because of they already have some health issues, hence loosing weight.

I wonder if it gives you an energy buffer if you do get sick. People often loose weight when they are ill, if you haven't got any to loose you could be in trouble quite quickly.

TopHatFox wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 16, 2018 8:52 pm

Been trying to think about this for fun. But what would you say is a reasonable amount for a single ERE person that doesn’t want kids to spend on purchasing a home to live in?

I've thought about this lately too, and every time my conclusion is that RVs / caravans are way more convenient.
Better to buy an used RV and use the remaining money to buy an home to rent imo.

Probably the only exception is if you wanted to live off the land or something.

classical_Liberal wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 17, 2018 10:04 pm

The most recent healthcare studies have shown its more about where the fat is, vs total amount of body fat (sample study). 5% is probably pushing a bit too lean if you're maintaining it for long periods because it reduces subq fat to abnormally low levels.

As you age (in 20-30 years), studies have shown that lower BMI's have increased overall mortality and dementia rates. Obviously, obesity is still way worse. (sample study)

But BMI and body fat % are not the same thing. People can have the same BMI with vastly different body compositions (which affects health).
Though as one grows older it becomes increasingly harder to have an high muscle/fat ratio.

tonyedgecombe wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 18, 2018 4:46 am

I wonder if it gives you an energy buffer if you do get sick. People often loose weight when they are ill, if you haven't got any to loose you could be in trouble quite quickly.

Could be, people on chemotherapy generally have trouble eating so having some cushion might help. On the other hand toxins are stored in fat so massive fat loss while going through illness might just add to overall poor health.

C40 wrote:With the right woman, I'd be open to being "kept" like that. I like doing those kinds of "productive" things anyways.

Right. As Jean noted elsewhere, ERE is mostly home economics (being your own housewife) combined with a bit of finance. Of course, this is also how the middle-class/mid-gentry used to live everywhere.

The thing that baffles me is how most of the men on this forum are still so stuck in late 20th century thinking that they can't comprehend that the cost of keeping a wife/house-husband who likes to do productive things is worth a shit-ton of capital otherwise invested. Simple calculation: Fairly lazy home-partner who only works 4 hours in the morning 5 days/week and is only capable of work at the level of average help at McDonalds = 20 X $10 X52 = $10,400/year = SWR on over $300,000!

I think the reason why this isn't abundantly apparent to most people is that home economic productive work in recent times has mostly been towards affluent child rearing practices and marginal improvement of quality of home environment.

Anyways, back to the OP question. My answer would be that it very much depends on the quantity and variety of production you wish to engage in within the scope of your home investment. As a mental exercise it might be worthwhile to consider the alternate options of buying a store front, a warehouse, a garage, farm, a well-lit studio, or timber acreage.

7Wannabe5 wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 18, 2018 5:50 am

The thing that baffles me is how most of the men on this forum are still so stuck in late 20th century thinking that they can't comprehend that the cost of keeping a wife/house-husband who likes to do productive things is worth a shit-ton of capital otherwise invested. Simple calculation: Fairly lazy home-partner who only works 4 hours in the morning 5 days/week and is only capable of work at the level of average help at McDonalds = 20 X $10 X52 = $10,400/year = SWR on over $300,000!

Makes sense, but an home-partner introduces variables and elements of risk that you can't necessarily control or predict, the whole system becomes more complicated. Significant compromises will have to be made (not always but often).
There is also the risk that the partner (or having one in general) becomes a key element to the system, without which the system is no longer sustainable. I'm not sure if such dependency is desirable (not necessarily financial, but also emotional, etc.).

7Wannabe5 wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 18, 2018 5:50 am

The thing that baffles me is how most of the men on this forum are still so stuck in late 20th century thinking that they can't comprehend that the cost of keeping a wife/house-husband who likes to do productive things is worth a shit-ton of capital otherwise invested. Simple calculation: Fairly lazy home-partner who only works 4 hours in the morning 5 days/week and is only capable of work at the level of average help at McDonalds = 20 X $10 X52 = $10,400/year = SWR on over $300,000!

Key words here "men on this forum" who are in general extremely progressive and ambiguous. Thousands of years of history show that men are perfectly willing to let women make babies and breakfast. The thing that has changed is feminism. Women want to work to be more independent.

There is a significant difference in the need for housing pre-FIRE and post-FIRE: post-FIRE one is location independent, while pre-FIRE one is likely tied to a job location, and the availability of employment in case one loses the current job.

The asset test for housing cost is best used post-FIRE, while an income test is more useful during the accumulation phase.